Conectar
To develop precision health (PH) competencies and evaluate their comprehensiveness and fit into nursing practice.
A modified e-Delphi technique was used to gather perceptions and achieve consensus on the inaugural set of PH domains, competency statements and sub-competencies developed by a workgroup formed under the aegis of the American Nurses Association (ANA).
A set of PH competencies and sub-competencies was developed by the ANA workgroup, beginning with a literature review, followed by a multi-step work process of the group over 3 years (2022–2025). Then, a modified e-Delphi technique was conducted via a four-point Likert scale Qualtrics survey, using a purposive sample of PH experts. The respondents were asked to agree or disagree with each competency or sub-competency statement and suggest modifications. The threshold of concordance was set at 80%.
The ANA workgroup reached consensus on six domains, six competency statements and 43 sub-competency statements to represent PH in nursing practice in its entirety. Forty experts in the field evaluated and offered revisions to the final 44 sub-competencies that represent the knowledge and skills necessary for PH in general nursing practice. A majority of the competency statements obtained favourable agreement from the expert panel, and a typical pattern of convergence was observed over two rounds of evaluation.
The development of PH competencies is the essential first step in the attempt to integrate PH into nursing practice.
The competency statements will inform nursing curricula, clinical practice guidelines, funding opportunities and role expectations in all healthcare settings.
This work sets the stage for subsequent interprofessional practice initiatives and research exploring how these competencies influence patient outcomes, workforce readiness and the practical integration of advanced technologies into precise care.
Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) represent a significant cause of postoperative morbidity and even mortality. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding this composite endpoint, the definition of the individual components, classification and optimal outcome measures. This study aims to refine the PPCs composite framework by evaluating its construct validity, assessing the necessity and risks of a composite measure and exploring the feasibility of differentiating severity categories.
A Delphi consensus process will be conducted, engaging an international multidisciplinary group of 30–40 panellists, including clinicians, researchers, patients, public representatives and health economists. Through iterative rounds, the study will seek agreement on the individual components of the PPCs composite. Additionally, consensus will establish a framework for a composite outcome measure based on a standardised severity classification, appropriate timeframes and weighted grading of PPCs.
Consensus, defined by ≥75% concurrence in multiple choice questions or on Likert–scale statements, will be evaluated from round 2 onwards. Delphi rounds will be continued until all statements have reached stability of responses evaluated by 2 tests or the Kruskal-Wallis test.
The study will be conducted in strict compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and will adhere to ACCORD guidance for reporting. Ethics approval has been obtained for this study from the University of Wolverhampton, UK (SOABE/202425/staff/3). Informed consent will be obtained from all panellists before the commencement of the Delphi process. The results of the study will be published in a peer–reviewed journal with the authorship assigned in accordance with ICMJE requirements.
NCT06916598 (clinicaltrials.gov).
First, to understand social needs in different mental disorders. Second, to determine patterns of social behaviour for either physical and online encounters in patients with depression.
Sequential qualitative design: (1) exploratory qualitative interview study investigating social needs of mentally disordered patients, followed by (2) qualitative network analysis of patients and healthy controls, analysed using inductive coding and triangulation for data aggregation and network visualisation. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) were followed.
(1) Professionals from inpatient and outpatient mental health services of psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy and psychiatry. (2) Patients from outpatient services, healthy controls from various settings.
(1) Nine mental health professionals with seven physicians and two psychological psychotherapists took part in interviews. (2) Network interviews were conducted with 10 patients with a diagnosis of depression given within the past year and nine healthy controls with matching sociodemographic characteristics.
Social relationships influence both the illness history and symptom profile of patients with depression. Patients reported less encounters compared with controls, although the frequency of their encounters was higher. Patients reported positive and trustful, yet more ambivalent relationships. Patients perceived less trust, but more influence on personal well-being by their encounters. Online contacts were described as more superficial by both groups.
Qualitative network analysis reveals patterns of social needs in physical and online encounters and their visualisation allows for direct group comparisons. Biopsychosocial research designs with a larger sample size are recommended. Targeted interventions have to regard the complexity of relationship patterns in physical and online interactions.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents a public health burden, with high prevalence and significant morbidity and mortality. Although evidence-based interventions exist, there is a need for more individualised care. The European project Individualised care from early risk of cardiovascular disease to established heart failure (iCARE4CVD) aims to personalise CVD prevention and treatment. Participatory health research, which actively involves patients in the planning, implementation and evaluation of projects, plays a crucial role here. However, patient participation is often unsuccessful due to the lack of a representative patient sample who is involved throughout the project’s duration, has knowledge of the project and can contribute their experience.
Participative Research for Individualised Care in Cardiovascular Diseases is a non-interventional, non-randomised, multicentre mixed-methods study. The aim is to incorporate patients’ insights into several key activities within iCARE4CVD by establishing country-specific patient panels in Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the UK. The primary objective is to identify patients’ preferences, experiences, requirements and needs for better diagnosis, treatment and self-care of CVD. Therefore, 10–12 patients across the CVD spectrum, from early risk to established CVD and heart failure, will be included in each country (40–48 in total). Over 3.5 years, patient panel members are required to complete four tasks: (1) identification of meaningful Patient-Reported Outcome and Experiences Measures, (2) development of a motivational model to increase adherence, (3) feedback on CVD care processes and (4) usability testing of new digital tools developed within iCARE4CVD. These tasks comprise eight activities in the form of paper-based or digital exercises, telephone surveys, written surveys and in-person focus groups. The results will be continuously incorporated into iCARE4CVD.
This study received ethical approval by the Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Medicine of RWTH Aachen University (EK 24-172) and St. Vincent’s University Hospital (RS24-027), Research Ethics Committee. In Geel and Belfast, positive ethics approval is pending. All participants will provide written informed consent prior to enrolment in the study and participation in the first patient panel task. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.
DRKS00034899.
V2.1, 6 June 2024.
FreshRSS 